In today’s headlines with Chereè Kinnear the most burgled neighbourhoods revealed, debate over speed limit increases and cardiologists warn of a heart services crisis.
The decision – which related to a “tsunami of threats and harassment” she received over her high-profile role during the pandemic – found the university did not breach Wiles’ academic freedom, but did breach her employment agreement.
The judgment, released on Monday, said the university was to pay the $20,000 to Wiles within 28 days.
Wiles filed complaints against the university in 2021, arguing her employer hadn’t taken enough steps to protect her against “a small but venomous sector of the public” that had become increasingly “unhinged”.
Wiles was the victim of “doxxing” – the act of publishing revealing personal details online. She learned from a journalist in January 2021 that her telephone number, personal email address, home address and an image of her home had been posted on a website that was opposed to the Government’s approach to dealing with the pandemic.
“The other thing that judge found was that the university’s conduct made everything worse and that was something that I definitely felt and argued really strongly and I’m really grateful that the judge agreed with me because it has been a very difficult few years,” Wiles said.
“It’s hard to be the subject of harassment, rape threats, death threats, all of those kinds of things, but for your employer to make the situation worse rather than supporting you, that has been really hard.”
Judge J.C. Holden found the university’s approach to dealing with Wiles’ circumstances “breached its health and safety obligations to her in that it failed to provide adequate protection and support to her”.
Dr Siouxsie Wiles took her employer to court in 2021 because she felt it had failed to protect her from a "tsunami of threats" which followed her Covid-19 commentary. Photo / Natalie Slade
“I also find the approach adopted by the university in the period leading up to the lodging of associate professor Wiles’s personal grievance on 12 July 2021 amounted to an unjustifiable disadvantage. Associate professor Wiles was entitled to expect the university to have put together a plan to keep her safe as she went about her work and to have supported her as she did so,” the judgment read.
Judge Holden found that although the university’s approach was deficient in that it was “reactive and not expansive enough”, the university did make efforts to comply with its health and safety obligations within the confines of its existent health and safety framework.
Wiles said the University of Auckland would obviously want to come out of the decision in the “best possible light”.
“It’s worth reflecting on the fact that the personal grievance was upheld and this was rejected by the vice-chancellor back in 2021. It perhaps wouldn’t have had to go all the way to Employment Court if she had listened to our concerns.
“It would’ve saved everybody a lot of money and a lot of time,” Wiles said.
University of Auckland vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater said she was pleased that the decision had been released after a three-and-a-half-week hearing in November 2023.
University of Auckland vice-chancellor Dawn Freshwater.
“This is a significant ruling from New Zealand’s Employment Court on academic freedom, which will be well received by universities in New Zealand and around the world.”
Judge Holden found the university breached some health and safety provisions, but acknowledged the breach of Wiles’ employment agreement was “not intentional” and the university continues to “take steps to improve its response to situations” such as the one Wiles found herself in.
“Those factors, together with the circumstances in which the breach occurred, mean I do not consider this case is one for which a penalty for breach of contract is warranted.”
Top epidemiologist Michael Baker said the judgment would hopefully encourage universities and other research-intensive organisations across New Zealand to develop a “comprehensive strategy” to ensure better protection for staff who need to communicate to the public and policy-makers, particularly in crisis situations like pandemics and natural disasters.
“Universities New Zealand might have a useful role in facilitating this process. This case also highlights the pervasive harms being caused by disinformation. This threat requires an all-of-society response and strong government leadership. It shouldn’t be left to determined individuals to fight this problem on their own in the courts,” Baker said.
Meanwhile physicist and modeller professor Shaun Hendy, who was a co-complainant with Wiles to the Employment Relations Authority in 2021, said the judgment should be a “wake-up call” for New Zealand’s universities.
Hendy resolved his dispute with the university when he left for a new role in 2022.
“Wiles’ courageous stance, in taking on New Zealand’s largest university, has left academic freedom in a much stronger position.
“By finding that public commentary falls within Wiles’ scope of employment, something that the university at times disputed, the judgment substantially strengthens the freedom of academics to act as the ‘critic and conscience of society’.”
‘Tsunami of threats’
Wiles, a microbiologist and science communicator, filed a complaint against the University of Auckland in 2021 because she felt the institution’s leaders had failed to protect her from threats which followed her commentary on Covid-19 and vaccination.
At the heart of the case was to what extent the university had a duty to protect her from external threats and whether these threats came as a result of her work for the university.
Wiles became a household name during the Covid-19 pandemic, carrying out up to 30 media interviews a day, and was made New Zealand of the Year in 2021.
The court heard that threats against Wiles began almost immediately after she began speaking out on Covid-19 in 2020, and became increasingly vitriolic and violent.
She was placed on a “Nuremberg list” and abused relentlessly online. She was also doxxed – her personal details and address posted online – and people came to her campus workplace to confront staff.
“These are not just one-off or random threats, this is an escalating tsunami of threats and harassment,” her lawyer Catherine Stewart said during the hearing.
Wiles’ legal team said the university failed to act despite she and her colleagues sending 60 emails about that harassment and holding seven meetings with human resources staff and managers.
When it later put in place measures to protect her – such as a threat assessment, email monitoring, and home security – they were belated or inadequate, the court heard.
During this period, the university used Wiles to promote its success. Yet privately, university leaders were urging Wiles to pull back from her public commentary if she wanted to reduce threats against her – an approach which she described as “victim-blaming”.
The university questioned some of her “outside activities” and raised concerns about her celebrity status, which one manager described as “Brand Siouxsie”.
During the hearing, its lawyers argued that academic freedom was not limitless and had to be balanced against health and safety obligations.
They said the university never tried to silence Wiles and did everything in its power to protect her from harassment.
Lawyer Philip Skelton, KC, told the court the university placed great value on academic freedom and encouraged staff to provide media commentary if it was in the public interest.
However, academic freedom was a “privilege, not a duty”, he said. It was not an “unfettered right” and had to be balanced against other responsibilities and legal requirements, including health and safety.
Skelton told the court the university was unable to control all threats, such as what people posted on social media platforms. It therefore focused on minimising and managing the risks, which it did through its staff risk intervention team and by liaising with police on certain individuals.
The university hired an external firm, Quantum Systems, to audit the systems it used to keep staff safe, and implemented its recommendations.
It later obtained an external risk assessment for Wiles from KPMG, and took on board its recommendations, the court heard.
Wiles was never unjustifiably disadvantaged in any way, such as through disciplinary proceedings or having benefits removed, Skelton said.
The university never instructed her to refrain from Covid commentary but did raise the “manner” of her tweets that related to university issues.
